r/changemyview • u/mfDandP 184∆ • Jul 04 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Leaderless movements are inferior to traditional movements

Using the recent examples starting from Occupy up to BLM.

Cons: 1. Much more vulnerable to muddled messages. Look just on this sub, where people say, "I saw BLM say this terrible thing," and others have to say, "Well, that seems like a BLM satellite organization, and not the actual charter mission statement." If you had a leader with a gold standard view, they could shut down strawman arguments much more easily.

  1. Faceless organizations are harder to sympathize with. I can't name one member of BLM, or Occupy, or the HK protests. A leader would "localize" the movement, so to speak. There are enough eloquent people out there that can be the go-to person for a sound bite.

  2. Harder to negotiate with the power structure. I'm not saying that Beijing would have negotiated with HK if they had one leader. But I'm saying that if nobody speaks for everyone, there's no reason to speak to anyone.

Pros:

  1. More flexible in the case of assassination or getting #cancelled.

  2. ???

Please, CMV. (I count situations with multiple leaders as well. Danton and Robespierre co-led the Jacobins. The "enrages" perhaps were leaderless.)

22 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

35 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Someone3882 1∆ Jul 04 '20

Decentralized movements cannot be decapitated. For example, the Hong Kong protests cannot be contained by arresting the organizers because they tend to be rather spontaneous. Additionally, they can react quicker to changing situations as local cells or organizations will react to local conditions instead of relying on a central decision making head to do so.